memory_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists output fields and does not state that it is a read-only operation, describe any side effects, or explain the output format. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from this description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single fragment, not a full sentence, and omits the verb. While it is short, it is under-specified and lacks the structure of an effective description. The fragment does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lists fields but does not explain what 'substrate size', 'entities', 'sources held', or 'mode' mean, nor does it state the purpose or expected usage. An agent has insufficient information to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because none exist. However, it also does not enrich the tool's overall semantics beyond the schema, so no higher score is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase listing data fields ('Substrate size, entities, sources held, and mode') without a verb or explicit resource. It does not state that this tool retrieves or returns these statistics, so the agent cannot be sure what action the tool performs. It also does not differentiate this from sibling tools like recall or export_memory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No context about prerequisites, conditions, or typical scenarios (e.g., checking memory state before an operation) is provided. The agent is left entirely to guess when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.